Subject: Re: Dual screen
Allegedly, on or about 17 February 2018, stan sent:
> Using monitors with different resolutions and dot pitches
> at the same time must play havoc with font selection.
Modern monitors (LCDs, etc), only work at one resolution, their native
ones. If you don't drive the pixels with a 1:1 ratio of graphics
generation to actual display resolution, you get a smudge. Monitors
should, automatically, get the right resolution, because they tell the
computer what theirs is. Though some lie, or have broken data, or if
you connect through some KVMs, that data isn't passed through.
You can have two vastly different monitors, the only noticeable
difference should be the size of the fonts (and graphics) on one
monitor versus the other, *IF* you're using font sizing based on the
number of pixels (which tends to be the case). But if you use point
sizing, then 12 point text on one device should look the same as 12
point text on the other, points are an *absolute* size (in the same way
as a 2 cm box should appear as 2 cm box, no matter what the display).
Display cloning/mirroring, is a problem, because you're trying to
generate the same data on two different medium. Independent dual
screen, should be fine (that's what I was describing above).
You can play with scaling, to magnify one display, and the graphics
rendering should neatly handle the magnification (render it bigger,
using more dots). But if you lie to the renderer about the display
resolution, to get that effect, you're likely to get poor resolution
results (render it bigger, stretching the dots). Linux is sadly
lacking in letting you easily pick font and graphics sizing.
Font rendering can be odd, thanks to smoothing or sharpening. For
text, I prefer the idea of a font engine that generates text properly
for the actual screen resolution. You notice in terminals the
different between fonts which only ever use whole pixels, versus the
ones that put in half contrast pixels trying to smooth the edges,
particularly on small text. For terminals, try picking a font that's
specifically intended for terminals.
By default, I use
Window Titles: Cantarell Bold 11
Interface: Cantarell Regular 11
Documents: Sans Regular 11
Minispace: Monospace Regular 11
Hinting: Slight (I did not see any difference and switching to full)
Antialiasing: Grayscale
Scaling factor: 1
Font rendering is a bastard to control. X, or Wayland, may have its
own rules for general screen rendering of text. Your web browser may
have its own independent scheme. The same probably applies for mail
clients using the same engines as browsers (Firefox, Thunderbird, etc).
And how are you connecting them? DVI or HDMI ought to be sharp and
clear, with a 1:1 matching of generated graphics to display pixels.
VGA has analogue signal which will often smear, as the pixel clock in
the graphics card is not the same as pixel clocking in the monitor.
I tried several things but without real success.
The motherboard has 2 ports, one VGA and one DVI.
The "old" monitor (1600x1200) is connected to the VGA and the fonts are sharpe.
The new monitor (LED/TV, 1920x1080) is HDMI and it is connected to the DVI port by a
cable
(DVI -> HDMI).
Indeed, I do not have much choice (no VGA on the new monitor, no HDMI on the old monitor)